Session Thirty-Seven, The Proofs of the Inherent Dignity of the Human Being

Session Thirty-Seven

The Proofs of the Inherent Dignity of the Human Being — The First Proof: The Verses — Examining the Conflict Between the Verses — Examining Another Response

April 27, 2025

Summary of the Previous Session

We briefly pointed to the verses that apparently conflict with the verses indicating the inherent dignity of the human being. We noted that there are two groups of verses, the sum of which suggests that the human being, qua human being, seemingly possesses no dignity—both those that are in the context of censuring and reproaching the human being in a general manner, and those that specifically apply such attributes to faithless individuals and disbelievers.

Examining the Conflict Between the Verses

This apparent conflict and inconsistency has prompted many to consider justifications and answers, and various responses have been mentioned for this conflict. To be sure, those offering these responses have not approached the issue from the perspective and origin of our discussion; we entered this discussion from the perspective of some verses indicating inherent dignity and other verses apparently denying inherent dignity.

However, the core of this issue has been raised as a resolution to the inconsistency and conflict between the verses praising the human being and the verses censuring him, and it has been discussed among commentators, researchers, and scholars of Qur’an sciences. Therefore, we establish a connection between that discussion and our own, and we shall present and examine the justifications that have been mentioned.

In the course of these examinations, this aspect may also prove useful—namely, it is clear that some of these responses themselves entail the denial of inherent dignity, whereas some of them can secure this aspect and serve as our evidence. My referring to this point was to show that this issue is not only examinable from the perspective we are addressing, but can also be approached from other dimensions.

In any case, the response that we believe can assist in resolving this difficulty and problem, and remove this apparent inconsistency, is a point Imam Khomeini raised in his discussion on the commentary of the tradition of the Hosts of Intellect and Ignorance (Junud al-Aql wa-l-Jahl). Concerning the human being, he states that the heart, which is the center of the reality of the human being’s fitrah, has two aspects: one aspect is directed toward the realm of the unseen (alam al-ghayb) and spirituality, and the other aspect is directed toward the realm of manifestation (alam al-shahadah) and physical nature.

Because the human being is the offspring of the world of physical nature and the child of the worldly domain—as is also derived from the noble verse: “his mother is the Abyss” (فَأُمُّهُ هَاوِيَةٌ)—he is from the very beginning nurtured within the sheath of physical nature, and his spirituality and fitrah enter into this veil. As the human being grows older and proceeds from childhood to adolescence and then to youth, the laws of physical nature encompass him, and the more the human being grows and develops within the world of physical nature, the more its laws dominate him.

He then states that the various faculties of the human being, particularly the faculties of anger (ghadab) and desire (shahwah)—owing to their being animal faculties—develop sooner. When these faculties gradually develop in the human being, animality and physical nature dominate him. He then states that the noble verse: “Verily, We created the human being in the finest state, then We reduced him to the lowest of the low” (لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ * ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَاهُ أَسْفَلَ سَافِلِينَ) points to this very reality, and for this reason, he has been described as being in “the finest state” (ahsan taqwim). When he subsequently enters into physical nature and becomes veiled by these barriers, this is that very “lowest of the low” (asfal safilin). Some have also expressed this as the arc of descent (qaws al-nuzul) and the arc of ascent (qaws al-sud).

He then states that for a human being to emerge from this veil by himself might not be possible, or it may rarely happen that someone possesses this power on his own. Therefore, God, Blessed and Exalted is He, out of eternal care and all-encompassing mercy for the generality of human beings, sent down the great prophets and heavenly scriptures to educate mankind, so that they might assist his internal fitrah from the outside and save the soul (nafs) from this sheath of physical nature.

According to this explanation, the human being possesses two aspects: one is the aspect of the fitrah, and the other is the aspect of physical nature. The verses that praise, laud, and commend the human being are directed at his fitrah—namely, the “finest state” (ahsan taqwim). The verses that censure the human being are directed at the aspect of physical nature. The human being, on the basis of his fitrah, is worthy of praise and commendation, and on the basis of sinking into the sheath of physical nature, is worthy of censure.

The late Allamah Tabataba’i has stated something similar. Commenting on verse 14 of Surah Al Imran, he states that what is meant by the love of desires is not ordinary interest, but rather infatuation and an intense degree of love, which is itself a kind of madness, and for this reason, it has been attributed to Satan. Had the origin of interest been intended, which is an innate matter, He would not have attributed it to Satan, since God has placed ordinary, innate interest in the hearts of everyone. Therefore, these attributes mentioned concerning the human being, wherein censure and reproach are raised, are considered by him to relate to the human species and to be of his physical natures, rather than relating to specific individuals. This stands in contrast to certain other views, including the view that censures relate to faithless individuals and praises relate to believers.

In any case, according to this explanation, this is a matter that relates to all human beings, according to which attention to physical nature and sinking into the world of physical nature is reproached. That is, as though praise and commendation, and censure and reproach, relate to two aspects of the human being’s personality. This does not mean that the existence and nature of the human being are a mixture of two forces of good and evil; that is another error—to say that there are two natures within the human being: one is goodness and the other is badness, one is good and the other is evil, one is purity and the other is impurity. No, it is not so. The human being, in view of his divine creation, possesses this capacity and characteristic to pay attention to physical nature or to pay attention to the fitrah.

Why the human being’s innate inclinations differ from his natural physical inclinations is also clear; after all, the source and root of the fitrah is well-known, and the source and root of physical nature is also clear.

Based on this foundation, there is no distinction between believer and disbeliever. These two aspects exist in all human beings, both believer and disbeliever. All human beings can be praised in this respect, and can be censured in that respect. This is the general answer, but we must resolve the issue with respect to some specific verses. For example, where are “the human being was created anxious” (خُلِقَ الْإِنْسَانُ هَلُوعًا), “the human being was created weak” (خُلِقَ الْإِنْسَانُ ضَعِيفًا), and “the human being was created hasty” (خُلِقَ الْإِنْسَانُ عَجُولًا) situated? Do these refer to the aspect of the fitrah or the aspect of physical nature?

If we say that verses such as “We have honored the children of Adam” (وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ) are directed at this aspect, while those other verses are directed at the aspect of physical nature, can this prove inherent dignity or not? Does inherent dignity emerge from this? According to this view, it is as though the human being has the potential to reach the best heights, and his human fitrah has provided this power in him to attain lofty perfections. If the human being does not guard himself, the sheath of physical nature will submerge him. But can this prove inherent dignity? That is, if we state that the human being is such a creature, does inherent dignity emerge from this?

With respect to universality, you observed that both disbelievers and Muslims enjoy these two aspects—the human being with faith and the human being without faith. This can resolve the problem of the inconsistency of the verses. But does this foundation harmonize with inherent dignity or not? As I noted, these are two distinct discussions: sometimes we wish, independent of this discussion, to see how these verses can be reconciled; and at other times we wish to address these verses from this perspective. We who argue that some of these verses indicate inherent dignity ultimately have these other verses against them. It is important how we utilize this discussion and the answer we gave to this question in our own discussion.

In your view, is the core of this answer correct or not? Is this answer compatible with the foundation of inherent dignity or not?

Question:

Professor: Someone might argue that this foundation and justification do not necessarily imply inherent dignity; this is a correct point. You say there is no contradiction, but it is also not mutually concomitant… we wish to resolve the conflict. If we state that these verses are directed at the aspect of physical nature and the human being’s life in the world of physical nature—which may lead him to become, for example, like cattle, nay further astray—does this mean the denial of inherent dignity?

Therefore, please note that, as indicated at the outset of the discussion, this response is not necessarily founded upon commitment to inherent dignity; it has been raised to resolve the inconsistency between these verses, and can, of course, also be compatible with the view of the non-existence of inherent dignity.

Examining Another Response

One of the responses that has been proposed—and to which some of the statements of the late Martyr Mutahhari in certain places are also directed—is precisely that the verses praising and commending the human being are directed at the human being with faith, whereas the verses censuring and reproaching him are directed at the faithless human being. That is, the praise and censure of the Qur’an are carried out based on the criterion and standard of faith and disbelief. It argues that the human being is a creature who, if he is of the people of faith, is superior to the angels, God’s vicegerent, and the object of the angels’ prostration; whereas if he lacks faith and is a disbeliever, he is definitely like cattle, nay further astray.

This view is subject to objection, because it has not been clarified what the primary foundation is. That the human being possesses numerous and different potential aspects—both positive potential and negative potential exist within him—which of these two potentials is primary and which is secondary? Does neither have superiority over the other? Is there no primacy in either of these potentials?

Furthermore, the very fact that a human being becomes a believer and another a disbeliever is actualized based on the choice and will of the human being; meaning that God, Blessed and Exalted is He, granted the human being intellect, will, choice, and the right to select in order to become a believer, otherwise his faith and belief possess no value. Assuredly, some of these verses are directed at the stage prior to faith and relate to the foundation of creation and the realm of existence.

Question:

Professor: Any verse indicating will, choice, and the existence of the intellect assuredly relates to the stage prior to faith and encompasses both the disbeliever and the believer.

Regarding where He censured, the censures and reproaches—inevitably a part of them relates to disbelief, and there is no debate about it, such as the strictness and severe treatments mentioned toward the disbelievers, which we must explain and justify as to how they conform to certain human rights. Yet apart from this, some of the weaknesses the Qur’an has enumerated for the human being are relative matters and in comparison to certain other things, and are not absolute. This has perhaps been presented as an aspect that itself can be the foundation of movement and perfection; hence, justifications have been mentioned for them and it is outside of this discussion.

At any rate, the negative attributes mentioned as reproach and censure for the human being do not contradict the pillars of the inherent dignity of the human being. Yes, some of these relate to the stage of faith and disbelief and have no relation to creation; the human being who chooses this path, his end is such. Yet none of these contradict those dignities we mentioned; they do not contradict the intellect, will, choice, freedom, and the right to select established for human beings. This is a general answer; furthermore, these verses are answerable on a case-by-case basis. Apart from these, four or five other answers have been mentioned, into which we need not enter. We merely wished to state in outline that: first, these verses are not considered conflicting with those verses; and second, they do not deny the inherent dignity of the human being.